Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: tedrbr on April 03, 2007, 12:38:04 PM
-
Beyond the more altruistic motives of adding a second perk-worthy buff ride to the game for buff drivers to spend their perk points on. There could be less savory reasons to vote for the A-26 Invader addition to the game.
The A-26B would be the "Lord of da HO", with up to 14 forward facing .50's. Boards will be filled with complaints, as will Channel 200. ("He killed me with one ping!" "Thot weren't no 'ping', son.")
That much firepower might also cause many players with serious frame rate problems every time a 'Vader fires anywhere in their vicinity.
Entertainment value of posts against the 'Vader in the forums re> it's speed ("it can't be caught by anyone") and if it gets drones (even though drones would be additionally perked like the Arado).
The speed issue will of course lead to a possible solution: the addition of the German 88mm Flak36, that, in addition to indirect and direct fire against ground targets, could engage aircraft in AA mode with manned puffy ack all the way up to 35K altitude. Not just useful against A-26 Invaders under it's 22,000 service ceiling, but no sub-orbital buff driver would be safe over a target. (LTARs should appreciate this aspect....when not being hunted by Invaders.....)
All part of my plan to take over the world.
(http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/evilgrin0041.gif) (http://www.thesmilies.com)
-
:rofl
-
Don't understand why the A-26, if we were to get it would be perked. It would hardly cause any sort of game imbalance, which is the criteria for a plane to be perked.
ack-ack
-
unperked would be great for me as i don't fly bombers much.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Don't understand why the A-26, if we were to get it would be perked. It would hardly cause any sort of game imbalance, which is the criteria for a plane to be perked.
ack-ack
i don,t think it should be perked on its own as an attack plane.
if used in a bomber formation maybe.
i think it would be the fastest level bomber in the game.
that might make it "uber" enough to warrant perking.
love to see a formation of A-26C s being chased down by A-26D s.
VOTE A-26 VOTE A26 VOTE A26
-
Same firepower as the Mossie and less than the Bf110G-2, though better balistics than the Bf110's. Both of them out perform the A-26 in air-to-air terms too.
I don't see how the A-26 changes anything.
Oh, bulletwise:
A-26:
14 guns x 12.5 rounds per second per gun = 175 rounds per second.
Spitfire Mk I/Hurricane Mk I:
8 guns x 20 rounds per second per gun = 160 rounds per second.
Not that far behind. No lag.
It will be perked because it would pretty much eliminate the use of a wide range of attack birds if it were free.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Same firepower as the Mossie and less than the Bf110G-2, though better balistics than the Bf110's. Both of them out perform the A-26 in air-to-air terms too.
I don't see how the A-26 changes anything.
Oh, bulletwise:
A-26:
14 guns x 12.5 rounds per second per gun = 175 rounds per second.
Spitfire Mk I/Hurricane Mk I:
8 guns x 20 rounds per second per gun = 160 rounds per second.
Not that far behind. No lag.
It will be perked because it would pretty much eliminate the use of a wide range of attack birds if it were free.
How would any plane on the list change anything more??
VOTE A-26 VOTE A-26 VOTE A-26
-
That wasn't what he was implying. He was claiming it was special in firepower and RoF. It really isn't.
As to what would have changed things most or been the biggest divergence, well, the Me410, but that is gone now.
Of those remaining at least the B-25 closes a gap and the P-39 kinda closes a gap. That is a bigger change than the A-26 which doesn't close anything at all.
-
I think the idea of adding flak36s to the game is a great one. Wish that could come out in the next version.
lwcody
-
Originally posted by Karnak
That wasn't what he was implying. He was claiming it was special in firepower and RoF. It really isn't.
As to what would have changed things most or been the biggest divergence, well, the Me410, but that is gone now.
Of those remaining at least the B-25 closes a gap and the P-39 kinda closes a gap. That is a bigger change than the A-26 which doesn't close anything at all.
Imho, the B-25 and the P-39 will get eaten alive in the LW arenas.
and we all know thats where most people fly.
the only gaps i see are in the EW and MW arenas,where those 2 planes would fare very well.
VOTE FOR FUN!!! VOTE A-26 VOTE FOR FUN!!!! VOTE A-26!!!
it would be nice if we could all get the plane we wanted.
i,ll try out whatever wins.
it would seem a waste to create new hanger queens though.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
It will be perked because it would pretty much eliminate the use of a wide range of attack birds if it were free.
Yep. Pretty much all medium bombers and many attack planes would sit if A-26 were free. Invader has been mentioned in the past being one of three or four perk-worthy bombers that could be added to the game. Just having something other than the Arado (which is fun at times, but limited use) to spend buff perk points on is a plus to buff drivers. No way Invader gets added as a free bird.
Of course, what HTC actually does with it, should it win: A-26B, A-26C with norden bombsight, lone attack plane or allowed to take drones..... Only difference between A-26B and A-26C is the nose configuration, so adding both would be relatively easy to do in-game, AFAIK.
An A-26B Block-50's with 14 X .50's X 400 rpg, 14 X 5 inch rockets on the wings, and an internal bay with 8 X 500 lbs bombs would do well in deack, anti-vehicle, vulch, town killer, and general attack roles.
An flight of 3 - A-26C Block-50's with Norden bombsight, and with up to 6,000 lbs bomb-load, would be a great medium level penetration bomber, better than both Ki-67 and B-26, and still have 8 forward firing .50s' with 400 rpg to do some strafing with.
There have been comparisons with the Mossie, but the Invader also has two remote barbettes, ventral and dorsal, with 2 X .50's X 500 rpg each to help defend it.
Invader in AHII in LW skies filled with La-7's, Pones, Nikis, and Splixteens wearing a "Kill Me I'm A Perk Ride" icon over it won't be the uber-ride it was in AW, but should still be a fun ride.
-
1Boner,
I tend to look at scenario options first and MA options second.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
1Boner,
I tend to look at scenario options first and MA options seventieth.
same idea as me
i ignore scenarios
don,t care for em.
to each his own
i understand why you would want those planes over A-26
good luck,
Boner
-
HO machine is what turned me off. I loved it in AW but you couldnt HO there. If it wasnt perked, no other bomber would be used.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
1Boner,
I tend to look at scenario options first and MA options second.
While scenarios draw some 5-700 people, the LWMA's get those kind of numbers every day. Filling out the planesets for scenarios is a good idea but to do that and forget about the usefullness of those planes in the arenas where HTC's bread and butter comes from would be a bad business decision, IMO.
-
According to some of these guys, the rest of the players are ignorant, and they wouldn't know what was added or what to do with it anyway, so it really doesn't matter if we get a Lame War MA monster or an early/mid/scenario filler.
-
A-26 is nice, don't get me wrong, I just think other things are more important.
I certainly won't complain if we get the A-26. Nor will I if we get the B-25, P-39 or Yak-3.
-
Have you ever tryed to catch a b26 at 10k after climbing upto it?
ya'll want to add something even faster? :huh
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
According to some of these guys, the rest of the players are ignorant, and they wouldn't know what was added or what to do with it anyway, so it really doesn't matter if we get a Lame War MA monster or an early/mid/scenario filler.
Let's look at the demographics at play here.
Maybe 1 player in 10 actually logs into the Forums. Probably a lot less than that when factoring in the 2-week trials and the kinds of questions I see posted in the in-game Help Channel, and I'm not sure if the trial players also get a vote on the plane. It is not the numbers in the Forums that will carry the vote for the new plane, but the greater numbers of players in the game.
That said:
Point#1
The MAJORITY of players of AHII play in the two LW arenas. The participation in EW, MW, SEA, and AvA combined does not add up to the participation of ONE LW arena. Also, a very large number of the players in the LW arena tend to fly Low-ENY aircraft: Pony-D, La-7, Niki, Spit16, P47N, CHogs, most of the time. This makes up the majority of the voting population.
Point#2
The B-25 performance:
It carried less bomb load than the B-26 , has a lower climb rate than the B-26. In fact, the B-25 might have the second worse rate of climb in the game better only than the Lancaster, depending on which spec numbers HTC follows. Additionally the Lanc can carry over 4-1/2 times the bomb load and has a higher top speed at altitude. The B-25's best role is in an EW addition for EW Arena, SEA events, and AvA. It's out of date for LW use.
Question: Why would the Voting population defined by Point#1 vote for a plane defined under Point#2? (For that matter, how did the population under Point#1 pass up a LW fighter with 3 X 20mm cannons and better than average performance numbers?)
That just does not add up that the majority of players in the vote, in LW, in low ENY planes, would vote for an EW medium bomber with low performance numbers, yet pass up mid-level fighters and attack planes they could use more effectively where they spend their time at in game.
Only alternative reasoning I can think of to explain that:
* There are players voting for an easy target to go after in LW arenas?
* There are players voting for a carrier launched B-25 for Doolittle Raids?
* There are players voting for the only plane on the list they have heard of from movies, and Doolittle Raid fame? Simple name recognition.
* There are players voting for the 75mm cannon version (how that is supposed to survive with ENY 5 enemy planes around, with its performance numbers, I'm not too sure). A slow firing 75mm that I might add was primarily used in anti-shipping operations (transports, fishing boats, barges, freighters) during the war --- not really meant, or effective, in anti-armor role.
So, yes, be it the "Proles", the "unwashed masses", a study in Nietzsche and self interest, or little Joey Goebbels being right about "the mass mind is far more primitive than we can imagine", there is definitely a discrepancy between the actions and habits and self interests shown of the voting public, and the planes that have been dropped from the list so far and some of those that continue to be in the running.
So "ignorant" by literal definition, though not it's most common use, could fit:
# uneducated in the fundamentals of a given art or branch of learning; lacking knowledge of a specific field; "she is ignorant of quantum mechanics"; "he is musically illiterate"
# unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge; "he was completely ignorant of the circumstances"
-
tedrbr
Does it really matter?
this is a big popularity contest.
i may or may not agree with you.
but in the end all it is is a popularity contest.none of the fighter planes in this contest would change the way the MA is played. the attack planes may have some effect. but a bomber? the one with the most fun factor is the one I will vote for! but i will not say what that is, because the Italian wolf will put the curse on it if I do!
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Question: Why would the Voting population defined by Point#1 vote for a plane defined under Point#2?
Because it's got electrolytes.
-
The A-26 will contribute nothing special to the MA. Non of the potential new planes will.
the main areanas need a troop trasporter, a bomber and a fighter to work and that's it. It doesn't matter one bit if these are American or German planes, if they are WWI or x-wings, if they were produced by the thousands, or if they are rare proto-types.
For the LWA where everything is enabled, the historical part is just a flavour, not the essense. In EWA, MWA, where the planeset is limited, a shortage in veriety is more pronounced. For special events, the planeset gaps are a real problem - and here, the A26 doesn't help at all. A plane such as the P-39 on the other hand, will fill quite a few slots both as American fighter and as a Russian fighter, in many scenarios. In LWA low alt fights, it will not be such a bad plane either - it worked for the russians.
A-26 is a cool plane. There are other just as cool planes that will be better for the game.
-
"Beyond the more altruistic motives of adding a second perk-worthy buff ride to the game for buff drivers to spend their perk points on."
If that is the case I would have rather added HE-177 "Greif" with Hs 293 or FX 1400 "bombs"... :p
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/rpav_germany_hr.html
-C+
-
Looking good so far, round 4 begins, and we need all to vote for the little bugger, that will get much playabilty. I may even fly it instead of my beloved B26 from now on. We shall see. But please dont forfiet your vote. I would really love to see this plane in game, perked or otherwise. I also would like to see it with drones.
Cheers mates
and good luck:aok
-
Originally posted by Charge
"Beyond the more altruistic motives of adding a second perk-worthy buff ride to the game for buff drivers to spend their perk points on."
If that is the case I would have rather added HE-177 "Greif" with Hs 293 or FX 1400 "bombs"... :p
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/rpav_germany_hr.html
-C+
Actually, the He-177 'Griffin', in a late model, less Zippo-like version, has been suggested as a perk-worthy ride, along with B-29 and Mossie bomber version, in addition to A-26.
What really hurts the He-177's chances as a game addition was the guided munitions: the Fritz X German air-launched anti-ship missile, and the Henschel Hs 293 anti-shipping, radio-controlled rocket/glide bomb. Won't see those added to the game. CV's easy enough to kill now.
Then there is the 350mph speed at 21,000 feet and 30,000+ foot service ceiling and 7,200 kg/15,800 lb bomb load. High speeds and high altitude with large bomb load being part of the argument against the B-29 addition to the game.
Comes down to last fighter on the list, an early war medium bomber with worse performance than the B-26, or the 'Vader at this point.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
:
A-26:
14 guns x 12.5 rounds per second per gun = 175 rounds per second.
Spitfire Mk I/Hurricane Mk I:
8 guns x 20 rounds per second per gun = 160 rounds per second.
Airsoft Minigun X8 = 400 rounds per second
You're comparing 50s to 303s
-
Imho, the B-25 and the P-39 will get eaten alive in the LW arenas. and we all know thats where most people fly. the only gaps i see are in the EW and MW arenas,where those 2 planes would fare very well.
History tells a different story...
Quote from Wikipedia article on the P-39 Airacobra.
_____________________________ ____________
In the relatively low-altitude operations in the East, the lack of a turbocharger was not as great a handicap. The low-speed, low-altitude turning nature of most air combat on the Russian Front suited the P-39's strengths rather than its inherent weaknesses. The second-highest scoring Allied ace, Pokryshkin, flew the P-39 from late 1942 until the end of the war; his unofficial score in the Airacobra stands at nearly 60 Luftwaffe aircraft.
_____________________________ ____________
A good pilot at low altitudes should fair well in this aircraft.
Cheers:aok
-
I think if the Vader wins it should be free like the Mossie. Save the perks for a B29.
-SR-:noid
-
Originally posted by -SR-
I think if the Vader wins it should be free like the Mossie. Save the perks for a B29.
-SR-:noid
Seriously doubt A-26 would ever be added without a perk cost. It would relegate just about all other medium bombers and attack planes to the hangar. It would also result it way too much use of HO tactics with all those .50's to grief all other players.
No, it has to come at a cost. Same reason C-Hog comes at a cost. Possibly with both B model operating alone, and C model that can operate with drones.
B-29 we'll never see, outside of *maybe* a Convention plane (and I doubt even they would open that can of worms). Too high, too fast, too large a bomb load.... few interceptors in game that could reach it at the upper end of it's performance envelop.
Add to the fact that, I'm not sure that the B-29, which loaded, weighs twice what the Lancs and B-24's in game do, could even get off the runways of most of the airfields in the game. B-29 addition would require changes to tiles, and quite possibly in the dar bar system to give a chance to intercept them.
-
Wow, now even the HTC guys have been added to the great unwashed
list. Methinks they alone know whether they want the Invader perked or
not. Assuming of course that the sentimental favorites bow out this round.
-
Originally posted by MotorOil1
Airsoft Minigun X8 = 400 rounds per second
You're comparing 50s to 303s
No, I comparing bullets to bullets. He was saying it would cause lag as an advantage due to the number of bullets. I was pointing out that there is no lag caused by the Spit/Hurri Mk Is.
-
Originally posted by -SR-
I think if the Vader wins it should be free like the Mossie. Save the perks for a B29.
-SR-:noid
Mossie is a fighter, not a bomber.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Mossie is a fighter, not a bomber.
Mossie was alot of things (sound familiar?)
it was used as a fighter/bomber/reconnaissance plane
recon was the 1st use--PA Mk.1
1942 the Mk.IV bomber
end of 43 was Mk.XVI Bomber--pressurized cockpit/3,973lb bomb load.
the mossie was most widely used in the role of fighter/bomber
the most used plane was the Mk.VI series fighter/bomber
mossie is alot of fun in the game
the A-26 will be just as much fun.
VOTE FOR FUN!!! VOTE A-26 !!!!! VOTE FOR FUN!!!! VOTE A-26!!!!
Your pal,
Boner:aok
-
Originally posted by Rino
Wow, now even the HTC guys have been added to the great unwashed
list. Methinks they alone know whether they want the Invader perked or
not. Assuming of course that the sentimental favorites bow out this round.
(sigh)
The topic of perked bombers has come up for long before I got here, and the A-26 Invader is usually mentioned along with the B-29, He-177, and the Mossie version (forget which at the moment) often requested, as perk-worthy bombers that could be added to game. Been told we won't see the B-29 often enough. He-177 has some of the problems of being added to the game the B-29 does. That leaves the Mossie and 'Vader. Vader made the list this time.
Also, there have been discussions regarding an additional perk bomber in topics such as "bomb-and-bail", and "dive bombing buffs", and NOE Lancs.
B-model's 14 X .50's, plus barbettes, almost requires a perk cost added to the plane. Otherwise, it'd be like having free C-Hogs in game.... few other Hogs would be seen if 4 X 20mms were free with Hog. A free Invader would also sent most other bombers and attack planes to the back of the hangar.
Added to game I'd like to see the Invader, both B and C models with drones, but not unlimited use. That's too much, IMHO.
What an Invader would cost in buff perks? Definitely a topic deserving it's own thread. B-model? C-model? Drones? All must be considered.
-
1Boner,
Oddly, I was refering to the one Mossie we have in AH and what it is classified as in AH. And what I meant was that having near fighter performance on a plane coming out of the bomber hangars would cause an issue. When the Mossie was first added it was listed as a bomber and it was saw heavy use as a fighter once the fighter hangars were down. A bombless Mossie with 25% fuel isn't a horrid fighter, and it has real bite in the nose. It was moved to the fighter categorey for that reason, and because historically the FB.Mk VI was used only by Fighter Command.
I have about $250 worth of books on the Mosquito within arm reach of me right now. ;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
1Boner,
Oddly, I was refering to the one Mossie we have in AH and what it is classified as in AH. And what I meant was that having near fighter performance on a plane coming out of the bomber hangars would cause an issue. When the Mossie was first added it was listed as a bomber and it was saw heavy use as a fighter once the fighter hangars were down. A bombless Mossie with 25% fuel isn't a horrid fighter, and it has real bite in the nose. It was moved to the fighter categorey for that reason, and because historically the FB.Mk VI was used only by Fighter Command.
I have about $250 worth of books on the Mosquito within arm reach of me right now. ;)
i think it would be wise for anyone attacking a base to take down the
bomber hangers too.
there won,t just be IL2s upping anymore.
thats IF the A-26 makes it through.
i respect your knowledge on the mossie
but, if the 26 makes it through , it will be interesting to see how it is classified.
i guess it will depend on the series they decide to develop.
good talkin with ya,
Boner
ps. i,ll give ya 50 bucks for the mossie books!!!:cool:
-
Pyro has mentioned the A-26 as an example of a perk bomber before. When I talked with him in 2005 the B-29, A-26 and Mosquito B.Mk XVI were the only things likely to be perk bombers that hadn't been added yet. Nothing else really has the performance or capability to justify being a perk bomber.
Because the A-26 is likely to be perked it won't be used for defense of a vulched field like the Mossie was.
If it isn't perked, you are of course right.
-
Karnak, sorry to get off topic, and I asked you this before I think, but forgot.
The mossie we have is the best furballer there was?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Pyro has mentioned the A-26 as an example of a perk bomber before. When I talked with him in 2005 the B-29, A-26 and Mosquito B.Mk XVI were the only things likely to be perk bombers that hadn't been added yet. Nothing else really has the performance or capability to justify being a perk bomber.
Because the A-26 is likely to be perked it won't be used for defense of a vulched field like the Mossie was.
If it isn't perked, you are of course right.
Well, it won't be used as much as the IL-2 is for defense, if perked, but there are quite a few buff drivers with a few thousand bomber perks to burn, and it comes down to how much an Invader will cost to lift, whether or not it sees base defense.
As for another comparison as to why the A-26 Invader should be perked.
A-20G
6 X .50's in the nose, 350 rpg (2,100 rds total) = about 26 seconds firing time.
2 X .50's in the dorsal turret, 400 rpg (800 rds total) = about 30 seconds firing time
A-26B
14 X .50's in nose and wings, 400 rpg (5,600 rds total) = about 30 seconds firing time......I'd expect primary trigger to be 8 guns in nose, 2ndary trigger to be 6 guns in wings, as all banks in Invader had on/off selector switches in firing circuit --- so up to 60 seconds total firing time if banks used separately.
2 X .50's in dorsal AND ventral barbettes X 500 rpg (2,000 rds total) = about 37 seconds firing time if fired together. Nearly as many rounds as A-20 has in it's nose.
'Vader also a bit faster (355mph max), stronger airframe design, can pull 7 to 8 G maneuvers according to some reports. 'Vader also carries more ord, with more ord options. C-model has 6 fewer nose guns, but does have Norden bombsight for level bombing role, and was even faster than the A-26B (374mph by one source).
-
Originally posted by moot
Karnak, sorry to get off topic, and I asked you this before I think, but forgot.
The mossie we have is the best furballer there was?
No, the NF.Mk XIII and NF.Mk XIX would be better at all alts and the NF.Mk 30 would be WAY better at high alt (high blown engines, 424mph top speed) but a bit worse in the weeds. At least 50 of the XIIIs had N2O installed in 1943, boosting speed by 47mph at 28,000ft on the same engines as the Mk VI in AH has.
We have the "Jack-of-all-trades" Mosquito in AH, and the most common with my than 2,700 Mk VIs built. The most famous raids tended to be done by Mk VIs.
-
tedrbr,
Yes, I know it will. I wasn't meaning to imply it wouldn't see heavy use. Just that as a base defender, ala Il-2 and pre-fightered Mossie, it wouldn't see much.
-
Why perk it ? The Mosquito/110g2 are already faster and more maneuverable aircraft (in the same general class), and both have superior firepower. The A-26 only brings a bigger bomb payload to the table (and also is a larger target, therefore is easier to hit, having almost a 20ft wider wingspan than either)
The A-26 is kind of one step between a fighter-bomber and a medium bomber (a little less speed, a little less firepower, and a little more bombs)...
An improved A-20 if you will (not an arena powerhouse by any measure).
Yeah I know - 14-15 .50 cals sounds great, but it still doesn't outshoot 4x20mm cannons.
According to Shaw (Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering) page 6:
Lethality Rating
----------------------
4x20mm M3 cannons = 4x18.2= 72.98 lethality (Mosquito)
14x.50cal M3 guns = 6.4x14 = 89.6 lethality (A-26)
* keep in mind, the lethality rating does not take into consideration that cannon rounds are HE explosive (alternating ball bearing slug/HE round for Hispanos).
Compared to a 110g2 with 30mm's ? Forget it !
The A-26 is a respectable "light bomber", but it's not something that would turn the arenas inside out - if it wins, it will be very popular at first, then after about a month, it will become nothing more than a "cult plane" - just like it was in Air Warrior (small but incredibly enthusiastic A-26 following).
It will never be much of a threat as a fighter unless you are:
1) a total dweeb or
2) you totally underestimate it and the guy flying it has >25% fuel AND is a skilled player (just like with the A-20)
Having said all the above, I'm voting A-26 all the way, and have been since the first round (me being a nostalgic DOS/AW vet).
...lot of good memories in that ride. Large A-26 raids on bases would be a serious good time....
Shamroc
-
shamroc,
Because they are not in the same class. The Mosquito Mk VI and Bf110G-2 are both fighters, neither of which carry 6,000lbs of bombs. The A-26 is an attack bomber. Fighter performance is acceptable for fighters, not bombers. Leaving it unperked would eliminate the use of a lot of other aircraft, thus decreasing the variety of aircraft in the MA rather than increasing it by adding a new aircraft.
-
Agreed, the A-26 is primarily a medium bomber class that had the performance to take on attack roles. Two of the three planes it was meant to replace were medium level bombers, and it's ord capacity of 6K lbs is in the medium bomber range. If added, it should be as a bomber, IMO.
Also, in regards to the lethality listing pulled from Shaw's work, how many rounds and what would be the total firing time of those 4 X 20mm, compared to the 30 second firing time of those 14 X .50's X 400 rpg?
The A-26 can, on average, take more high deflection shots and land hits. It would also have better reach with those .50's, on average, than the 20mm's.
Then, if the A-26 wins, it will come down to which version and block number they decide to model. Early block 5's? Most common Block 50's? Others?
A B-model with or without drones? A C-model with drones for level bombing? Both - since it is just a nose configuration change? B would definitely be a perk plane, for the reasons already given. C probably still should be, so Ki-67's and B-26's still get flown, but maybe 3 C-models (lead plus 2 drones) costs what 1 B-model does?
-
The (proverbial) A-26 is simply not an overall dominant aircraft - The perk point system is there to prevent very advanced aircraft from completely dominating the arenas (ie: if we didn't have perk points, you'd have nothing but Me262s, Me163s and Tigers in the arenas). Introducing the A-26 will not mean other rides won't be flown - in fact, to almost every other ride out there, an A-26 = an easy kill (all pilots being equal).
Only reason why the 234 is perked (or should be perked ;-)) is because you need a 262 to catch it. Not so with the A-26.
The (proverbial) A-26 simply wouldn't dominate like the current perk rides do. It simply would not outfight, or outrun the vast majority of aircraft out there.
Not saying it isn't one hell of a cool ride (I'm voting for it all the way) deserving of it's own "niche" of usefullness, just saying it's nothing that will dump the LW arena on it's ear - so there is NO NEED to perk it.
Also, the A-26 only entered combat in Nov 1944 - so you simply shouldn't find it in the Early or Mid arenas (where perking it might be justified).
Now, if you mean that the A-26 would discourage the use of the A-20 or B-26, that is another matter - but this is no different than what we have with the SpitV/Spit XVI, P-51B/P-51D, BostonIII/A-20 or LA-5/LA-7 etc.
The solution for this (minor) problem is the ENY/VALUE system to REWARD the player with higher perks points (and serious bragging rights) for taking a lesser ride into successful combat ie:landing three kills in a P-51B will turn a lot more heads (and pay a lot better) than landing three in a P-51D. Ditto for bombing ground targets etc.
So, proper ENY/VALUE settings is all that the A-26 needs. It is NOT perkworthy IMHO.
shamroc
shamroc,
Because they are not in the same class. The Mosquito Mk VI and Bf110G-2 are both fighters, neither of which carry 6,000lbs of bombs. The A-26 is an attack bomber. Fighter performance is acceptable for fighters, not bombers. Leaving it unperked would eliminate the use of a lot of other aircraft, thus decreasing the variety of aircraft in the MA rather than increasing it by adding a new aircraft.
-
Shaw's "lethality" table takes weight of fire, rate of fire, muzzle velocity
and projectile mass into account.
In simple terms, it shows how much damage system "A" would do VS system "B" given
the same amount of firing time.
It does NOT take the explosiveness of HE rounds (cannons) into consideration -
Shaw openly states this as a caveat - his table isn't perfect, but it's a nice
starting point when comparing systems.
It is true that you do get longer reach with the 50s, however at long distances,
the 50s lose a huge amount of their kinetic energy (the farther they go, the more
they slow down). At long range, it becomes "raisins off bouncing off an Oldsmobile".
True cannon rounds don't go quite as far, but you still get the HE bang at the end
of the line.
Shamroc
tedrbr wrote:
Also, in regards to the lethality listing pulled from Shaw's work,
how many rounds and what would be the total firing time of those
4 X 20mm, compared to the 30 second firing time of
those 14 X .50's X 400 rpg?
-
The perk point system is there to prevent very advanced aircraft from completely dominating the arenas
By your arguments shamrock the F4U-1C shouldn't be perked - and it is.
I'm not saying that it isn't a good platform, but it's hardly a very advanced arena dominator.
-
I'll be curious what the A-26 {whenever we get it} FM will be like. It's faster but it has heavier wingloading. The secret to dogfighting the A-20 is getting it slow enough (same as the vader in AW)....so while the greater speed/power might be good...it might effect its ability to fight.
I am curious about control surface/wing strength. I've lost more A-20s to popped surfaces/wings then air to air combat. If the A-26 can endure higher speeds and pull greater G's then that extra E will be useful....otherwise its a liability IMO.
I'm impressed with the leathality of the A20. Very nice pop indeed....seems every bit as effective as the P-38 to me.
I have the same concerns with the A-26 I did/do with the 410. Your a big target and with hvy wingloading I dont see how you survive as well as the A-20 (or mossie)......
-
Originally posted by Ghastly
By your arguments shamrock the F4U-1C shouldn't be perked - and it is.
I'm not saying that it isn't a good platform, but it's hardly a very advanced arena dominator.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The perk point system is there to prevent very advanced aircraft from completely dominating the arenas
But that's the very reason why the F4U-1C was perked.
ack-ack
-
A-26 made use of laminar wing/body designs, its technology has a lot in common with tech used on Mustangs and B-29's. The wing went through several redesigns and updates during the design and testing phase due to wing spars cracking..... test pilots were flying 'Vader like fighters, and over-stressing the spars.
Even war production Invaders could be flown to the point of wing failure. I don't think any surface parts or control surfaces would fail before a spar, not that I've ever read anyway. And even a over-stressed spar could get you home (8 inboard, 8 outboard spars).
Harder numbers probably can be found with the members of the Sim Outhouse, who've been developing the 'Vader for use in MS FS9 and FSX.
Also, the flaps used on the 'Vader were supposed to be better than even Fowler Flaps.
Since the new aircraft was going to be big, fast, and heavy, flaps were of extreme importance and Douglas designers came up with a flap that had multiple airfoil-shaped panels to create a large, slotted flap. Heinemann deducted that this new flap would produce a 30 percent higher lift coefficient than did the flaps on the A-20. He also reasoned the flap was better than the Fowler flap (favored by Lockheed) since it had a lower pitching moment for a given lift coefficient. The flap also improved landing and takeoff performance.
Original military requirements were looking for 5.5 to 6G capabilities, which was steadily increased through the design and testing. 7 to 8 G's in combat were reported.
The actual FM for the game would be interesting.
-
I wonder what the spar's design limits were?
The Mosquito's was initially stressed to take 82 tons without failing. Then a stronger wing was introduced with the Mk VI that could take, if I recall correctly, 110 tons.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I wonder what the spar's design limits were?
I shudder to think how hard getting the numbers for that could be. The Invader project had to be an engineer's, drafter's, and machinist's nightmare. It went through constant changes as War Department made different demands. USAAF was insisting on 75mm armed plane up to the Block-5 builds. There is a story that in one day alone, the Invader went through 35 design changes.
Probably information from Korean Invaders, or the A-26K rebuild project for Vietnam, would have better numbers for what actually went into the WWII 'Vaders.